linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute bad_peb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:03:45 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     Zach Brown <zach.brown@...com>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com, dedekind1@...il.com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute
 bad_peb_limit if available

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:33:53PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 10.01.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Zach Brown:
> > From: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@...com>
> > 
> > If the user has not set max_beb_per1024 using either the cmdline or
> > Kconfig options for doing so, use the MTD function 'max_bad_blocks' to
> > compute the UBI bad_peb_limit.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...com>
> > Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electron.com>
> 
> Does this patch go via the MTD tree?
> In this case:
> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>

I thought we had said something about going through the UBI tree. But I
don't care.

I'm not sure what's happening with patches 3-5 yet either.

I'm applying patch 1 to l2-mtd.git. Depending on the following, I can
apply patch 2 as well...

...but this is still a bit awkward; AFAICT, if you use the default
Kconfig (MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT == 20) then this won't take effect. Accepting
the default seems a little different than "I chose a value in Kconfig."

I think we could probably reconcile this by dropping the Kconfig (as
Richard suggested), and defaulting to 20 if neither cmdline nor
autodetect (e.g., ONFI) have said otherwise.

Or if y'all agree that the behavior I mentioned is fine, I can still
take this on behalf of Richard.

Brian